There's this filmmaker named Michael Moore. He's famous for making bold documentaries challenging government actions and other controversial topics like terrorism (Fahrenheit 9/11), gun violence (Bowling for Columbine), and health care (Sicko). But his main focus is on economics - namely, the downfall of the American economy.
Today, I watched his most recent documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story. It followed Moore as he examined the effects of a money-driven society on people's lives - specifically, what happens when you can't pay back bank loans. Answer: they take your house. Or whatever it is you have left. But the real kicker came in after we watch a family clean out their house and take their things to the local dump (the bank could have the house stripped for them, but they offered the family $1,000 to do it themselves). After they had burned the last few wooden armoires, the son remarked that at least he still has his hobby - flying. He aspires to be a pilot - something I've always viewed as an honorable profession. However, almost as a cruel stroke of irony, Moore's documentary goes on to confess that pilots are some of the lowest paid workers in the US. Which is absolutely ridiculous, considering the about of pressure placed on their profession. But they're seriously only paid a starting salary of around $20,000 a year; it's common for rookie pilots to live on food stamps for a while. It takes years to reach the high 20ks.
I always thank pilots at the end of a flight just because it's polite. I'm going to start shaking their hands.
Anyway. That was just a side fact, no one's clearly to blame. But a couple of other things addressed in the documentary caught my attention. Like, there was a woman who decorated cakes at Wal-Mart - she suddenly died of a severe asthma attack. Her family, of course, was left with hospital bills and funeral expenses - and was infuriated to find out that Wal-Mart had taken out a life insurance policy on her, but named themselves as the beneficiaries. Wal-Mart got $81,000. The family got more bills. This same situation happened to a family in Houston - the husband worked for Amegy Bank and was diagnosed with cancer. Amegy got over $1.5 million when he died. And it's perfectly legal. Something called "Dead Peasants" policies that corporations take out on their employees - some even estimate what percentage of their workers will die every year and factor it into the annual budget.
And then there's the thing with the government. On September 18, 2008, there was this huge financial crisis. Before then, everything was fine, nothing out of the ordinary. But all of a sudden, that Thursday morning, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave Congress a five-page document demanding a $700 billion bail-out plan, or all hell would break loose. The White House was quick to encourage Congress to sign the plan immediately - which conveniently included a clause saying it was not to be reviewed against any legal measures to save time. Eventually, a deal was cut.
A few things are wrong with what happened that day. First, I don't know about you, but I had no idea that happened. As far as I was concerned, 9/18/08 was Bailey's 17th birthday. It was a Thursday. I must have even watched the news that evening at dinner like I do every other night. But I definitely didn't hear about this. Actually, here are the headlines that ran that day on a democratic news site. I've only been able to find a couple of very carefully worded headlines on very specific sites. You'd think that news of a national crisis would have made it to the general public. However, the government keeping information from the public, I can understand - they're in a position of power. But the government keeping information from themselves? I mean, Congress was straight blindsighted by that bailout plan.
This probably isn't the way things are supposed to work in the US. So here's what I think: obviously, we're supposed to have a democracy - meaning the people have power. And the government knows this, as well as the big-shot corporations. And so they'll do anything to keep the public from being educated on behind-the-curtain actions - if we don't know there's anything wrong, we won't try to change anything. But not everyone here is bad - some of the people involved in these actions are as in the dark as we are. Moore interviewed someone in the government banking industry who said that there's pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place. They don't ask the government what they're going to do with the money, and so the government doesn't tell them.
When Franklin Roosevelt was in office, he proposed a "Second Bill of Rights" in a State of the Union address. It has also been called an Economic Bill of Rights. It outlines basic "rights" - I put that in quotations because, while they're such basic things, there are people who unjustly live without them. Things like a job, health care, adequate income, and education. FDR died a year or so later, and no action was ever taken on his proposition.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
Recently, the University of Notre Dame's Facebook page (yes, I follow their fan page) posted several articles regarding the "worth" of a college diploma. Of course, they chose articles in which they were featured and spoken of in a good light. But anyway, the first article that caught my eye was from PayScale. They determined the worth of a school's diploma based on the average net return-on-investment (ROI) after thirty years (Notre Dame ranked 9th, MIT took 1st). The ROI is basically how much money you make after graduation in comparison with how much you paid for your education. Also on the Top 10 were the California Institute of Technology, Harvey Mudd College, and of course, the usual Ivies.
Pretty good advertisement, right? Well, yesterday they posted something from The Chronicle entitled "Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admission?". At first, I had problems accessing the article, so I decided to research the topic on my own. The best article I found was the one I posted on my Facebook, "Some Debt-Laden Graduates Wonder Why They Bothered With College" from abc News. It addresses the common belief that the best way to make money is to start off with the best education. But today's economy offers a limited number of jobs to all of these well-educated college graduates. So what does that mean? Not all of them are going to get good jobs. And so we see an increase in the number of people who took out loans to pay for college, only to graduate and find that they don't have enough income to pay it back. A Bachelor's degree will still get you more than a high school diploma - but it'll also set you back more as well.
Of course, the ever present question still stands: why is college so expensive? CNN's Money Magazine offers a few answers: supply and demand, marketing strategy, and a "luxury arms race".
The luxury arms race is the most obvious - schools are using the money to build state of the art dorms, classrooms, fitness centers, etc., essentially competing with other schools in an "arms race" of who has the more attractive campus. Personally, this doesn't really bother me since the students are the ultimate beneficiaries.
The other two, however, while understandable and clever, can also qualify as devious and avaricious if you ask me. I remember a while ago, Katy said that if it's becoming more common for people to want to get a college degree these days, why don't they make said education more affordable? Answer: because they know that people want education - and so they'll charge whatever they want knowing that someone, somewhere is willing to pay it. It's kind of like that concept about expectations we learned in economics: when a natural disaster is expected, the prices of flashlight batteries and bottled water will increase just enough to make a profit on public hype.
Additionally, comes the idea of strategic pricing. This is one I never really thought about. Obviously, the Ivy League schools are a bit pricier than say, state schools. But while the quality of education remains without a definitive price tag, people still have a subconscious respect for universities that charge more for tuition. CNN referenced Ursinus College in Pennsylvania who increased their cost of tuition and fees by 17.6% and were met with 200 more applicants than the previous year. Within eight years, the freshman class was 56% larger. It's like profiling - the way you would judge a person by just by looking at them. Stereotypically, racially, culturally, etc. - making assumptions without exchanging a word. The same goes for colleges; prospective employers will generally look at a Harvard diploma with admiration and a community college diploma with apprehension. Obviously, other things would be taken into account in a job interview, but you can't doubt that in the back of his/her mind, they're making a judgement - despite who may be better qualified in the end.
Pretty good advertisement, right? Well, yesterday they posted something from The Chronicle entitled "Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admission?". At first, I had problems accessing the article, so I decided to research the topic on my own. The best article I found was the one I posted on my Facebook, "Some Debt-Laden Graduates Wonder Why They Bothered With College" from abc News. It addresses the common belief that the best way to make money is to start off with the best education. But today's economy offers a limited number of jobs to all of these well-educated college graduates. So what does that mean? Not all of them are going to get good jobs. And so we see an increase in the number of people who took out loans to pay for college, only to graduate and find that they don't have enough income to pay it back. A Bachelor's degree will still get you more than a high school diploma - but it'll also set you back more as well.
Of course, the ever present question still stands: why is college so expensive? CNN's Money Magazine offers a few answers: supply and demand, marketing strategy, and a "luxury arms race".
The luxury arms race is the most obvious - schools are using the money to build state of the art dorms, classrooms, fitness centers, etc., essentially competing with other schools in an "arms race" of who has the more attractive campus. Personally, this doesn't really bother me since the students are the ultimate beneficiaries.
The other two, however, while understandable and clever, can also qualify as devious and avaricious if you ask me. I remember a while ago, Katy said that if it's becoming more common for people to want to get a college degree these days, why don't they make said education more affordable? Answer: because they know that people want education - and so they'll charge whatever they want knowing that someone, somewhere is willing to pay it. It's kind of like that concept about expectations we learned in economics: when a natural disaster is expected, the prices of flashlight batteries and bottled water will increase just enough to make a profit on public hype.
Additionally, comes the idea of strategic pricing. This is one I never really thought about. Obviously, the Ivy League schools are a bit pricier than say, state schools. But while the quality of education remains without a definitive price tag, people still have a subconscious respect for universities that charge more for tuition. CNN referenced Ursinus College in Pennsylvania who increased their cost of tuition and fees by 17.6% and were met with 200 more applicants than the previous year. Within eight years, the freshman class was 56% larger. It's like profiling - the way you would judge a person by just by looking at them. Stereotypically, racially, culturally, etc. - making assumptions without exchanging a word. The same goes for colleges; prospective employers will generally look at a Harvard diploma with admiration and a community college diploma with apprehension. Obviously, other things would be taken into account in a job interview, but you can't doubt that in the back of his/her mind, they're making a judgement - despite who may be better qualified in the end.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
In a Valiant Effort to Understand
Another one of my favorite obsessions is horror movies - not necessarily watching them, but reading the "spoilers" and descriptions on the Internet. I can't really handle seeing graphic violence on screen, but reading about it is okay (I coincidentally read an article in my mom's old Women's World magazine today about how that works) - example: A Clockwork Orange was wonderful, but don't expect me to see the movie anytime soon. But I do have a kind of intrigue for the stories in slasher films - I think it started with stumbling upon a Wikipedia article depicting all of the different traps from the Saw movies. Mind you, I've only ever actually watched the first movie as the edited version that runs on cable. But I remember thinking how ingenious the traps were; most of them even had a simple way out, if only the victims had calmed down or thought ahead. Even the drive of Jigsaw was clever to me - he threatened people (in, albeit, extreme ways) to show them the worth of their lives. But maybe people just need to be shocked in order to be changed sometimes.
Which brings me to my point: I have nothing but awe and respect for filmmakers that utilize influence over human sensitivity in order to make a point - appealing to their "pathos", if you will (fun fact: "pathos" is Greek for "suffering" or "experience"). And I have even more reverence for the director or writer who can create a story that is equally powerful, but in actuality has left most of the shock to be imagined by the viewer. Another fun fact: the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from the 70s was made with limited sex, violence, and language in hopes of getting a PG rating from the MPAA so that more people would go see it.
Naturally, it's the films that have equal shock value but little gore that I look out for. But in light of today's techonology and desensitivity, mainstream movies like that are rare, and the ones that are given a chance, like Paranormal Activity, are acclaimed (I still can't get over the fact that they made the movie with a budget of like $15,000, and grossed almost $200,000,000). The effect of being exposed to so much violence on people in society is something that has been studied and wondered about for as long as horror movies have been aroud. I came across a list of the "Top Ten Most Controversial Horror Films" in Bloody-Disgusting.com's article, "Culture Shock: The Influence of History on Horror". I found it interesting that the majority of the films on that list weren't the slice-and-dice "horror porn" movies that are popular now, but movies - some of which I hadn't heard of - from the 70s and 80s. Odd, considering what modern movie-making can do today (but, of course, pretty much all ten movies have either already been remade, or is in the process of being redone).
The movie that earned the number one spot was Cannibal Holocaust (1980). It's about an anthropology professor who goes into the Amazon to look for a missing documentary crew. He gets hold of the film that they made before they dissappeared, and goes back to NYU to try to salvage the documentary, only to find that the film reveals what happened to the crew and what they did - basically, it's a "found footage" movie, like Cloverfield, where part of the movie is filmed in a "home video" format for a more realistic feel. But Cannibal Holocaust was so genuinely messed up that the director, Ruggero Deodato, was arrested because viewers truly believed that the footage was real - and that people were really murdered (of course, it didn't help that the actors signed a contract saying they wouldn't appear in other movies for a year to mess with the public, making it look like they were dead). Oh, and they really killed animals! Like, they actually took animals and violently killed them, as opposed to using special effects. Deodato was eventually cleared of the charges after demonstrating to a courtroom how one of the violent scenes was staged. He, as well as the screenwriter, producers, and film studio, was convicted of obscenity and violence. They each received a four-month suspended sentence.
Anyway, other than just being incredibly offensive, the idea of Cannibal Holocaust was the classic Pocahontas moral - that people who are considered "civilized" can be more depraved than indigenous "savages" (and look, Disney proved it with a G-rating and no lawsuits). But the bottom line is that the movie meant something. As did the other controversial movies on the list. I noticed after a while that, while reading the movie synopses, I had the habit of looking for some kind of meaning - some justification, if you will, for all of the violence and controversy. I was judging them by weighing the moral with the content. Most passed, but then I got to thinking about the "horror porn" we have now - Hostel, for example. I don't know about you, but I can remember to not follow strangers without being traumatized, thank you. Then I realized - not all movies have a "hidden meaning" or justification. They're violent for the sake of being violent. It's like people have lost the respect for movie-making, and are taking advantage of society's love for violence in order to make money. But why, for goodness sake, is violence so seductive?
Which brings me to my point: I have nothing but awe and respect for filmmakers that utilize influence over human sensitivity in order to make a point - appealing to their "pathos", if you will (fun fact: "pathos" is Greek for "suffering" or "experience"). And I have even more reverence for the director or writer who can create a story that is equally powerful, but in actuality has left most of the shock to be imagined by the viewer. Another fun fact: the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from the 70s was made with limited sex, violence, and language in hopes of getting a PG rating from the MPAA so that more people would go see it.
Naturally, it's the films that have equal shock value but little gore that I look out for. But in light of today's techonology and desensitivity, mainstream movies like that are rare, and the ones that are given a chance, like Paranormal Activity, are acclaimed (I still can't get over the fact that they made the movie with a budget of like $15,000, and grossed almost $200,000,000). The effect of being exposed to so much violence on people in society is something that has been studied and wondered about for as long as horror movies have been aroud. I came across a list of the "Top Ten Most Controversial Horror Films" in Bloody-Disgusting.com's article, "Culture Shock: The Influence of History on Horror". I found it interesting that the majority of the films on that list weren't the slice-and-dice "horror porn" movies that are popular now, but movies - some of which I hadn't heard of - from the 70s and 80s. Odd, considering what modern movie-making can do today (but, of course, pretty much all ten movies have either already been remade, or is in the process of being redone).
The movie that earned the number one spot was Cannibal Holocaust (1980). It's about an anthropology professor who goes into the Amazon to look for a missing documentary crew. He gets hold of the film that they made before they dissappeared, and goes back to NYU to try to salvage the documentary, only to find that the film reveals what happened to the crew and what they did - basically, it's a "found footage" movie, like Cloverfield, where part of the movie is filmed in a "home video" format for a more realistic feel. But Cannibal Holocaust was so genuinely messed up that the director, Ruggero Deodato, was arrested because viewers truly believed that the footage was real - and that people were really murdered (of course, it didn't help that the actors signed a contract saying they wouldn't appear in other movies for a year to mess with the public, making it look like they were dead). Oh, and they really killed animals! Like, they actually took animals and violently killed them, as opposed to using special effects. Deodato was eventually cleared of the charges after demonstrating to a courtroom how one of the violent scenes was staged. He, as well as the screenwriter, producers, and film studio, was convicted of obscenity and violence. They each received a four-month suspended sentence.
Anyway, other than just being incredibly offensive, the idea of Cannibal Holocaust was the classic Pocahontas moral - that people who are considered "civilized" can be more depraved than indigenous "savages" (and look, Disney proved it with a G-rating and no lawsuits). But the bottom line is that the movie meant something. As did the other controversial movies on the list. I noticed after a while that, while reading the movie synopses, I had the habit of looking for some kind of meaning - some justification, if you will, for all of the violence and controversy. I was judging them by weighing the moral with the content. Most passed, but then I got to thinking about the "horror porn" we have now - Hostel, for example. I don't know about you, but I can remember to not follow strangers without being traumatized, thank you. Then I realized - not all movies have a "hidden meaning" or justification. They're violent for the sake of being violent. It's like people have lost the respect for movie-making, and are taking advantage of society's love for violence in order to make money. But why, for goodness sake, is violence so seductive?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Already Stubborn Skin Thickens
Last Friday, I went downtown to Juliana Tokyo for lunch with my dad and his friend. On Toomer's Corner, there were members of some kind of religious group - men, women and children - dressed in modest, traditional style clothing (simple, plain-cut pieces); except their clothes were made from material of unusually bright colors in a plaid pattern. The men were holding signs and yelling something about going to Hell at everyone that walked or drove past while the women handed out pamphlets quietly.
My dad said that people from religious groups like them used to be stationed on campus at AU - only if you refused a pamphlet or kept walking, they would shout obscenities and throw things. And that's how religious solicitors were banned on campus.
But, of course, people are still allowed to stand on street corners or assemble in public places and petition things that they believe in as part of their freedoms to assemble and expression. But where is the line between self-expression and public offense? There was something on the news today that featured a clip of a Black Panther activist at a rally shouting about killing [white] people. In the United States, the government is strictly prohibited from restricting any form of speech - even if it encourages violence.
And if the police arrest someone, probably on the grounds of disorderly conduct, history generally proves that the offenders are protected in court by the freedom of expression clause. But does "expression" encompass derogatory comments or actions directed towards people based on race, beliefs, or choices? And if so, then what's protecting the people on the other end of "expressions"?
My dad said that people from religious groups like them used to be stationed on campus at AU - only if you refused a pamphlet or kept walking, they would shout obscenities and throw things. And that's how religious solicitors were banned on campus.
But, of course, people are still allowed to stand on street corners or assemble in public places and petition things that they believe in as part of their freedoms to assemble and expression. But where is the line between self-expression and public offense? There was something on the news today that featured a clip of a Black Panther activist at a rally shouting about killing [white] people. In the United States, the government is strictly prohibited from restricting any form of speech - even if it encourages violence.
And if the police arrest someone, probably on the grounds of disorderly conduct, history generally proves that the offenders are protected in court by the freedom of expression clause. But does "expression" encompass derogatory comments or actions directed towards people based on race, beliefs, or choices? And if so, then what's protecting the people on the other end of "expressions"?
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Ivories that Slice Sedatives in Half
On Thursday morning, I woke up to realize that the left side of my mouth was swollen where I got my wisdom teeth out - three weeks ago. I figured it would get better, and that it was probably just a reaction to something I ate - spicy food or something seemed plausible. But this morning it seemed to be a lot worse, so I called the Urgent Care center to make sure they were open (of course they were, considering how many idiots with access to fire crackers were running around today). I knew I had an infection, and really only needed antibiotics to clear it up, and it seemed like entirely too much trouble to go and sit in the waiting room at UC for that, especially when I wasn't positive that they would even give me a prescription. So I called Dr. Parker's office, and they got him on his cell phone. He offered to call in a prescription for more antibiotics and threw in another for Lortab as well (which, come to think of it, was a rather iffy move - I could have easily been lying to get more drugs).
Anyway, before I called Dr. Parker, I looked around on the Internet to see if there were any over-the-counter options I could use, only to find that it's illegal to sell OTC antibiotics in the US. But some other sites came up, offering brand suggestions in the UK - where OTC antibiotics are legal. This must be one of the many areas that the US and UK differ in - censorship, government, and health care. After doing a bit of research, I've come up with a significant list of pros and cons.
The most widely accepted reason for limiting public access to antibiotics is that excessive use could lead to the development of resistant strains of bacteria - rendering antibiotics obsolete, and leaving people in a whole lot of danger. However, an article I found in the Oxford Journals (naturally) states that there really isn't much solid proof that overusing antibiotics can lead to uber-bacteria.
Then we get into the fuzzy areas. The UK made OTC antibiotics legal so that the people would have more access to health care - trusting that they would use them responsibly and that it would only do them good. This is where the idea of universal health care comes in - it's thought that if you provide health care to everyone, the doctors and pharmacists won't be needed as much, and therefore lose business and jobs and money. But in my opinion, if more people can be helped at the expense of someone's already ample paycheck, then why not?
And, of course, if something in the US is illegal, there's going to be people finding ways around it. An article I came across listed four main options: pet stores, the Internet, back-ally ethnic supermarkets, and Mexico. Basically, they're all pretty risky. The "pet store" option is the funniest to me - the antibiotics used on fish are chemically the same as the stuff we use for ourselves, so you just go in, buy some, and take an extra large dose.
Sadly, I have a really bad reaction to Lortab, including nausea and dizziness, so I'm going to have to cut this short here. I'll try to be more prolific when I'm off these pills.
Anyway, before I called Dr. Parker, I looked around on the Internet to see if there were any over-the-counter options I could use, only to find that it's illegal to sell OTC antibiotics in the US. But some other sites came up, offering brand suggestions in the UK - where OTC antibiotics are legal. This must be one of the many areas that the US and UK differ in - censorship, government, and health care. After doing a bit of research, I've come up with a significant list of pros and cons.
The most widely accepted reason for limiting public access to antibiotics is that excessive use could lead to the development of resistant strains of bacteria - rendering antibiotics obsolete, and leaving people in a whole lot of danger. However, an article I found in the Oxford Journals (naturally) states that there really isn't much solid proof that overusing antibiotics can lead to uber-bacteria.
Then we get into the fuzzy areas. The UK made OTC antibiotics legal so that the people would have more access to health care - trusting that they would use them responsibly and that it would only do them good. This is where the idea of universal health care comes in - it's thought that if you provide health care to everyone, the doctors and pharmacists won't be needed as much, and therefore lose business and jobs and money. But in my opinion, if more people can be helped at the expense of someone's already ample paycheck, then why not?
And, of course, if something in the US is illegal, there's going to be people finding ways around it. An article I came across listed four main options: pet stores, the Internet, back-ally ethnic supermarkets, and Mexico. Basically, they're all pretty risky. The "pet store" option is the funniest to me - the antibiotics used on fish are chemically the same as the stuff we use for ourselves, so you just go in, buy some, and take an extra large dose.
Sadly, I have a really bad reaction to Lortab, including nausea and dizziness, so I'm going to have to cut this short here. I'll try to be more prolific when I'm off these pills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)